Is trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( rising or falling in Kiribati?

Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.

Where does this Kiribati data come from?

The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology) - Score. Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.

Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) ( in Kiribati

Name: Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) ( in Kiribati
Creator: World Bank
License: CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)

Kiribati: Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) ( was 82.86 in 2019. ▬ Flat

Latest (2019)

82.86

Change on year

unchanged

World rank

110th

of 188 countries

All-time high

82.86

in 2014

All-time low

82.86

in 2014

Years of data

2014–2019

Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) ( in Kiribati, 2014–2019

Source: World Bank.

Analysis

The most recent figure for trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( in Kiribati is 82.86, measured in 2019. That is the highest value across all 6 years on record.

Compared with earlier readings it is unchanged over ten years.

Kiribati ranks 110th of 188 countries on this measure, in the middle of the range.

Countries ranked near Kiribati

109 Morocco 83.37 compare
110 Argentina 82.86 compare
110 Cambodia 82.86 compare
113 Rwanda 82.7 compare

See the full ranking of 190 places →

More reference data data for Kiribati

Emission Totals - Direct emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 0.0143 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) (AR5) - IPCC Agriculture 20.06 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) (AR5) - Enteric Fermentation 0.7542 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.0058 (2050)
Emission Totals - Direct emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 0.0007 (2050)
Emission Totals - Direct emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.0136 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 0.0202 (2050)
Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 0.0001 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (CH4) - Manure Management 0.4165 (2050)
Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) (AR5) - Agricultural Soils 5.35 (2050)

All data for Kiribati →

Frequently asked questions

What is trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( in Kiribati?: Trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( in Kiribati was 82.86 in 2019, according to the World Bank.
What is the highest trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( recorded in Kiribati?: The highest recorded value was 82.86 in 2014.
What is the lowest trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( recorded in Kiribati?: The lowest recorded value was 82.86 in 2014.
How does Kiribati rank for trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) (?: Kiribati ranks 110th out of 188 countries with data for 2019.
Is trading across borders: cost to import: documentary compliance (usd) ( rising or falling in Kiribati?: Over the last ten years it is unchanged. The long-run trend across the full record is flat.
Where does this Kiribati data come from?: The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology) - Score. Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.

Download this data

CSV · JSON — 6 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).

About this data

Indicator: Trading across borders: Cost to import: Documentary compliance (USD) (DB16-20 methodology) - Score
Source: World Bank
Licence: CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage: 190 places, 1,139 data points, 2014–2019
Last refreshed: 10 August 2026

The score for the cost for documentary compliance to import benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator. The score ranges from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB16-20 studies.